• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 0

    posted a message on Paranoid about your cards?
    I carry a briefcase handcuffed to my wrist whenever I play Vintage. Inside that briefcase is a GPS and launch codes for a nuclear missile that is set to home in on that particular GPS. If someone steals my ****, everyone dies.

    Infraction for spamming the forum - BlackVise
    Posted in: Vintage (Type 1)
  • 0

    posted a message on Too fat to be executed for murder?
    [DELETED]
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Turbo Kit Recommendations
    [DELETED]
    Posted in: Geeks Corner
  • 0

    posted a message on Most creative way to pay a parking ticket?
    [DELETED]
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on Chicago Teachers Union rejects 16% pay raise, goes on strike
    [DELETED]
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Apple sues a Polish grocery chain for copyright infringement
    [DELETED]
    Posted in: Geeks Corner
  • 0

    posted a message on Election: 2012
    Quote from Coffee
    What Romney says, does not match up with his voting record; I don't trust the guy. And Ryan? Way too far to the right, and strikes me as uncompromising. I'd really like to see our two parties start to compromise and work together: no more "they wouldn't work with us at this point" followed by counter-criticisms of "oh yeah? You didn't work with us on this!". Leave the past in the past, and move forward.

    So, like me, you would want a return to the post-Republican Revolution of 1994 era of Clinton's two terms? When Clinton and Republicans met in the center to actually do good stuff for the country?

    Obama does make me sincerely miss the days of Clinton. Although I have to question how well Clinton and the Republicans would have done in the 90s if this nation hadn't be riding the dot com bubble.
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on Most expensive thing ever copied by the Chinese?
    Wow...maybe I should have posted this later at night when all the thin skinned people who can't take jokes or read the intent of a message (I thought the intent was rather clear) wouldn't be around.

    The purpose of the thread was to try and make light of the "industry" in China that often makes copies, at a much lower price point, of high ticket luxury items while combining it with a roundabout compliment of the resourcefulness of the Chinese to make a copy of a Lamborghini out of scrap metal.

    But apparently, that obvious intent of my message was lost on at least two people who just immediately claim I'm a racist.
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on Most expensive thing ever copied by the Chinese?
    Quote from resonance
    It looks nothing like a Lamborghini. Or at least the resemblance isn't enough to con someone into thinking it was an actual Lamborghini. Since this isn't a "knock off" in the sense that it isn't intended to be mistaken for and sold as the actual product, I find the entire premise of this thread rather racist.

    Particularly, the assertion that the Chinese are incessantly 'copying' and "knocking off" things even as hobbies offends me. Americans frequently make model whatevers themselves as a hobby and it is rarely, if ever, associated with these negative connotations.

    Wow...first response, immediately throws up the "you're a racist!" placard. Well played. This thread is clearly intended to be in jest at the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the Chinese, and you immediately try to derail it into claims that I am racist. This is, in a roundabout fashion, a compliment to the Chinese as a whole, and you (intentionally?) are misconstruing it in an effort to attack me.

    And I consider American-made "knock offs" to be knock offs as well, even when done as a hobby. Just like the Bugatti Veyron nee Mercury Cougar the guy actually sold for $90,000.
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on Most expensive thing ever copied by the Chinese?
    We all know about "cheap Chinese knock offs" of popular items - phones, tablets, bags, perfume, software, movies, etc., etc.

    How about a Chinese knock off Lamborghini?

    http://news.yahoo.com/photos/chinese-farmer-builds-lamborghini-from-scrap-metal-slideshow/

    Infraction for trolling --Senori
    Infraction reversed at Sen's request —Rax
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on [[Official]] 2012 US Presidential Election Thread
    Quote from LogicX
    We are talking about what Ryan did. And he blamed Obama. Obama tried to get compromises in the committee but Ryan shut things down. You are so blinded by partisanship that you can't understand simple black and white facts.

    I never blamed Obama. Quit putting your version of events in my mouth. And I'm pretty damned far from being partisan...just because I'm not extreme left wing like you doesn't make my moderate position "partisan" to anyone but you and other extreme left wing nuts.

    Quote from LogicX
    And? Obama took office on January 20th.

    So if the plant was still open when Obama passed his bailout, then closed down...wouldn't that mean Ryan was telling the truth?

    Quote from LogicX
    Just because Republicans tell more lies doesn't mean it has a bias. Rolleyes

    Bull****. Both parties lie out their ass - quit turning a blind eye to the **** ups of your party and only concentrating on Republicans. Makes you look like a ****ing hypocrite.

    Quote from LogicX
    Reading is tech.

    Now you're letting your partisanship show. Read what you quoted - Ryan did not say his budget would cut that much money from Medicare. You are making an idiotic assumption to support your horrible position.

    Infraction for flaming.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Bonfire of the Damned too powerful?
    So in other words, modern Standard is aggro, slightly slower aggro with bigger creatures, aggro that tries to cast really big creatures quickly, and aggro that tries to cast one uber creature and protect it?
    Posted in: Standard Archives
  • 0

    posted a message on My Little Pony: Speakeasy is Magic
    My friend was at SCG Detroit and snagged a playmat Lindsey Burley made. It's a plain black playmat with the Mane 6 inked on it as line art in appropriately colored markers. It goes well with my altered Pony Nine and Sparkle Vault.
    Posted in: the Speakeasy
  • 0

    posted a message on Worldgorger Dragon Combo
    Quote from Cretaceous1987
    I have a quick question and not sure if this thread has died.

    But would a recommend creature to "Turn Off" the D.Combo would be Sliver Queen ? I do have a list that has served quite well and will post it. But was not sure if I reviewed it enough. I figure get the infininte going then select the Queen during the interaction after building up mana then flood the field with slivers.

    Sliver Queen has been out of the combo for quite some time. Ambassader Laquatus was used for a while after that, but even he has been retired now.

    The new win condition of choice if Oona, Queen of the Fae. Like the Queen, she makes 1/1s - that also fly, so are better than the Queen's 1/1s. Like the Ambassador, she mills your opponent's deck - but exiles the cards, so cards like Gaea's Blessing and the Eldrazi do not prevent you from winning.

    Here is a more current list.
    Posted in: Bazaar-Based Decks
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Tiax
    Which two? I only see two such claims on the blog post, and one is the FRC which we've already discussed.

    The Family Research Center is still classified as a hate group, and has received a total of $1,000 from WinShape from 2003 to 2008.

    Focus on the Family is claimed to be a hate group by the Equity Matters webpage originally furnished to me by Teia, but examination of the anti-gay section of the SPLC webpage does not list them.

    Then they make some long trail to link Chick-fil-A to another "hate group" that is listed in the SPLC webpage. It seems circumstantial at best, like a six degrees association. That is in the link you furnished me.

    Honestly...I'm not buying into this. Sure, there is one questionable donation to a SPLC-listed "hate group" totaling $1,000 over five years - but that is it. The rest of the donations are to groups this page, clearly biased in favor of LGBT, are to groups not listed on SPLC. It seems to me that Chick-fil-A is being dragged through the mud for one bad donation and for the owner having the audacity to exercise his First Amendment rights.

    I am grateful for this thread for one reason - it made me look at the Southern Poverty Law Center again, and their webpage certainly seems more politically charged and anti-right wing overall than it was a few years ago.

    Quote from LogicX
    Yep. They can say what they want, and we can all boycott them and refuse them permits for being intolerant pigs.

    For someone on the left wing, you sure are very intolerant of people who disagree with you. In fact...that is exactly what you and others are accusing Dan Cathy of.

    By your own admission of intolerance, you are no better than him.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from LogicX
    Why not? If the KKK wants to buy government property to open a KKK clubhouse in my neighborhood, I hope my elected representative causes that to not happen. Or it an oil company wants to start fracking in my town, I hope my representative looks out for my interests and puts a stop to it.

    Chick-fil-A wasn't trying to buy government property.

    Quote from LogicX
    Government contracts should absolutely include looking out for the values of local constituents.

    And refusing a permit to a company that would create jobs in a ****ty economy is looking out for the local constituents? Just because the owner of the company used his First Amendment rights to vocalize an opinion you do not agree with?

    "Sorry random Chicago and Boston areas. There would have been a restaurant opening in your area, meaning jobs for you. But we don't like the opinion of their owner, and told them no. Continue collecting unemployment, or not if you've been unemployed too long."
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Drawmeomg
    It's enough.

    So if Wizards, somehow, donated $1,000 to the Nation of Islam, a recognized black supremacist group by the SPLC, you'd stop buying cards in protest?

    Quote from Tiax
    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103220005

    That contains links to their tax documents, which show the other donations. It's a bunch of other right-leaning and evangelical groups. I don't see anything that would be remotely pro-gay.

    Honestly...the more I read this, the more I feel that people are taking this and blowing it entirely out of proportion.

    And I've already found at least two groups this blog claims are hate groups per the SPLC that are not classified as such by the SPLC.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from _
    It's the combination of funding for and open statements.

    It's a small amount of their annual charitable donations (with significantly less than 1% going to a single "hate group" as classified by the SPLC, which [based on it's website now] seems to be very politicized these days), combined with the open statements of it's owner.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from _
    The reason the bolded part is true is because the owner of Chick-Fil-A has come out and made some very slanderous comments about homosexuals insofar as coming very close to Westboro rhetoric. "they're ruining our country" etc.

    Edited in a link for quotation, ignore bias of blog poster, quote is posted as relevant: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/07/chick-fil-ceo-god-is-punishing-america.html

    That is the personal opinion of a single person in the organization. Saying that because he said one thing, and thus the entire organization says the same thing is akin to saying that the words of the President are the words of our entire nation.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    I've been perusing the link provided to me by Teia, and I've noticed a few things that irk me and lead me to believe this is being made into a bigger issue than it really is.

    Using the 2009 data that is given in that link, I've noticed a few things.

    1) According to the 2009 data, WinShape gave out $1,733,699 (22.184% of their 2009 funds) to anti-gay groups. That is out of a total of $7,814,788 than WinShape received directly from Chick-fil-A. Where did the other $6,081,089 (77.815% of their 2009 funds) go to?

    2) Of the seven anti-gay groups, only two are one is classified as a "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center - and they received a total contribution of $13,500 $1,000 ($12,500 to Focus on the Family and $1,000 to Family Research Center). That $13,500 $1,000 turns out to be either 0.77% 0.000576% of the total contributed amount going to the anti-gay groups was going to hate groups, or 0.17% 0.000127% of the total 2009 contributions to everything going to hate groups.

    EDIT: According to the most current list of anti-gay hate groups on the SPLC's webpage, only the Family Research Center is still classified as a hate group. I have adjusted my numbers appropriately. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-gay/active_hate_groups

    Mostly, I want to know where the other $6M in donations went. For all we know, Chick-fil-A donated more to pro-gay groups than they donated to anti-gay groups, but the anti-gay donations are being used to villainize Chick-fil-A while the pro-gay donations are ignored. (This is pure speculation on my part, and I am in no way presenting this as an argument)
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Plastic Surgery to Stop Bullying
    Part of me just can't help but compare what I went through as a teen in school before we had all these "anti-bullying" laws and what these kids are going through today. It pales in comparison to what I experienced, but I had no problems surviving it.

    What is happening to American children these days?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Drawmeomg
    If it were absolutely assured that legal marriage benefits would not be abolished within the next 50 years, would you still oppose gay marriage for that time period?

    I don't oppose gay marriage. I oppose marriage as a whole. But the addendum to this position directly relating to gay marriage is also well known: I support gay marriage for as long as marriage remains a functional government benefit granting institution. But I still do not support marriage as a whole, and would gladly give time and monetary support to any organizations that were pushing for complete abolishment of ALL marriage from the government.

    I support the noble end goal of every person being equal in life and having the same chances to success or fail, regardless of gender, race, age, sexual orientation or the income bracket of their parents. But I do not agree with the methods a lot of people preach to achieve that goal.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Functionally speaking, you'd be against gay rights/equal rights for gay people if you, say, voted against gay marriage as a result of your beliefs, despite that straight marriage would ultimately be left alone.

    With a choice like that, I would abstain that vote. I would vote in support of anything that would result in the complete abolishment of all forms of benefit granting marriage under the government.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    Family Research Council. Here's a breakdown of who CFA donated to and what they do. Suffice to say, I'm not simply saying "hate group" merely because I disagree with them (as the link says, "The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center"), but because, well, groups like the FRC really are hate groups.

    I'll look into this and see why they were labeled as a hate group. But coming from the SPLC, I am inclined to believe it is a legitimate labeling. The SPLC does a pretty good job of being impartial in labeling hate groups.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Tiax
    The FRC is identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    I've never heard of the FRC, who are they? And is there proof Chick-fil-A donated money to them?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    I don't see how it's possible to be against equality and not be against the marginalized group. It's like saying you oppose women's right to vote but aren't against women per se, or that you support anti-miscegenation but you aren't against black people per se. It's just a silly mental contortion to avoid labeling oneself a bigot for their beliefs.

    It can be achieved easily. I am very pro-gay rights, but am anti-gay marriage because of my views on marriage as a whole (I want all forms of marriage abolished as an outdated construct, or at least regulated to a purely religious joining that confers no benefits on the married couple from the government). Am I bigoted against gays because I am against gay marriage by virtue of being against marriage as an institution?

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    And then Chick-Fil-A, a company placing such emphasis on adherence to religious principles, decides to go and bear false witness by lying about the Jim Henson recall and making up a story about some potential safety risk being the reason.

    I'd have to read both sides of the story before passing any judgment on this.

    Quote from Teia Rabishu
    To hate groups, actually (I know the FRC was in there, at least). It's not just donating to anti-gay activities. It's like a company owned by white supremists actively donating to the KKK.

    FRC? And do you have documentation that this group is a verified hate group and received donations from Chick-fil-A? Or are you claiming they are a hate group because they run contrary to your beliefs on a subject? And you do realize that the term "hate group" is tossed around with almost as much indifference in the United States today as the word "racist" is, right? The value the terms holds today is a lot less than what it held 10 years ago.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Sun_shine_dan
    Personally I think there is a big difference between funneling money into helping a minority group and and oppressing a minority group, but I do agree that individuals should make that decision, not government.

    I wouldn't say groups like the NBPP or NoI help minorities groups...but a discussion of black hate groups is for another thread.

    Quote from Sun_shine_dan
    Also as to you and Popeyes, Al Copeland was a white guy, but thank you for reminding me of your bias. I almost forgot.

    You say that like it's a bad thing. Every single person in this world is biased in one way or another - including you. Bias is human nature, some people hide it and repress it and end up miserable for it, others control it and live happy lives. And as I always say, you don't know me. You've never met me. And you most likely will never meet me and never know me. Basing an opinion of me off of some words I wrote on the Internet is the height of ignorance. Go ahead and keep forming opinions of me and wallow in your ignorance. No skin off my back if you have a wrong opinion of who and what I am.

    Me? I'm a very happy person with a lot of friends across all races, ages, genders and sexual orientations. Call me a racist. Call me a homophobe. Call me whatever you want. They're just words you're using in ignorance, and mean nothing to me and to those who know me.

    Quote from Valros
    It's a matter of priorities. What if, instead of Chik-Fil-A, it was a bank known to give money to terrorist groups? Or drug cartels?

    At that point, that company is in direct violation of Federal laws regarding the material support of terrorist organizations. They can and should be shut down immediately.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from Sun_shine_dan
    The big push against Chick-fil-a comes from the fact that the profits are funneled into anti-gay activities.

    So while the company doesn't ban gay individuals from entering, the money earned their essentially goes to oppress a segment of the population.

    A lot of companies funnel profits into activities people disagree with. It still isn't a reason to attempt to ban a company from opening a store in a city - especially in a ****ty economy when a brand new restaurant means jobs.

    Do you think if I found out Popeyes was funneling profits into black supremacy activities, I would stop eating their delicious chicken and biscuits? Hell no.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    Quote from ljossberir
    I have to say that I'm a little nervous if we're going to say that one can cross that line with speech that is not directed specifically at anyone.

    But why should a business that employs a very large amount of people be punished for the beliefs of it's owner?

    EDIT: Alright there _...this needs to stop. We aren't allowed to have similar view points on this many topics in one week.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Should cities be allowed to ban businesses
    The personal beliefs of the owners, whether spoken or not, should have no impact on whether or not the business is allowed to operate as long as the business itself does not discriminate.

    Chick-fil-A's owner may support "traditional" marriage, but the business itself does not discriminate against anyone in any way in it's hiring or serving practices. Plus, their chicken sandwiches are insanely good. The only "religious" practice that Chick-fil-A does that I do not agree with is being closed on Sundays because it's the Sabbath. What if I want a delicious Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich on Sunday?!

    What makes this even murkier is that Rahm Emanuel supports the actions of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam members in Chicago - an Louis Farrakhan has gone on record of saying that all homosexuals should be put to death. A bit more extreme than Dan Cathy saying he supports traditional marriage.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on smoker fired for cancer center for smelling like smoke at work...
    Quote from Cyan
    The notion that a company should be able to fire you because smoke at home is completely absurd. Smoking is not illegal, and accordingly, a company has no right whatsoever taking this course of action. So what if you work at a cancer center. What you do at home is still your business.

    This is just another example of corporations having too much ability to abuse and control their workers. Ugh.

    It's not absurd. They told her she couldn't come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. She did not comply. She was fired for not doing as she was told by her employer.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on smoker fired for cancer center for smelling like smoke at work...
    Quote from ljossberir
    Are you saying that addiction is a choice?

    If "addiction" wasn't a choice, then people wouldn't stop smoking, doing drugs, and drinking every day. Granted, they are harder choices to make...but they are still choices people make every day.

    Quote from ljossberir
    Is it your contention that, for example, sexual expression and religion are not choices?

    As someone who was born and raised Christian and is currently Pagan, I can personally verify that religion is a choice. I cannot vouch for sexuality, since I've been straight since I discovered what a penis does to a vagina.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    My position has never been that CCW carriers are more likely to kill people. Never has been.

    But the laws you support passing will impact lawful CCW carriers like me significantly more than it will impact criminals and mass murderers.

    There were 55,643 homicides in the United States from 2007 until 2010 (last year the FBI has completed data for). 37,491 on them were homicides using firearms - or 67.37%. 463 non-justifiable homicides (convictions and charged awaiting trial) were committed by lawful CCW permit holders. That is a mere 1.235% of homicides (actual number will be smaller, I am using roughly 5 1/2 years of data from www.vpc.org in comparison to only 4 years of data from www.fbi.gov) that were committed by the group of people who are most impacted by newer stricter gun control laws.

    Is it fair to punish all lawful CCW permit holders for the crimes committed by 0.00005716% of lawful CCW permit holders and all other gun-using criminals?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    Not even a majority of which were gun crimes. Irrelevant data.

    Of course you dismiss it as irrelevant - it erodes your position on gun control to show that licensed CCW permit holders commit a statistically insignificant amount of homicides in comparison to the amount of homicides committed in a city with some of the strictest gun control laws on the books in a state with the strictest gun control laws on the books.

    If you would have read the Wikipedia entry, you would have seen that in 2005 75% of homicides were committed with a gun. Using that as a base line, we can estimate that 1,911.75 of the homicides in the 62 month window I provided were committed with a gun. Compare the 1,911.75 to the 463 CCW permit holders who were charged with homicide and you will see that Chicago alone as an estimated 4.129:1 the rate of gun related homicides than all the CCW permit holders combined in 32 states.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on smoker fired for cancer center for smelling like smoke at work...
    Quote from bocephus
    Let me rephrase, since I didnt come across correctly the first time. If thy are going to allow someone who has been working for a company for a set time be fired all of a sudden for being a smoker, then what stops companies form firing people becasue of other discriminatory reasons such as race, age, skin color? The slippery slope is the reasoning behind the firing and what it could lead to.

    Because smoking or not smoking is a personal choice you have direct control over to make. The other things you listed are things people have no control over - you cannot decide your race, stop age, or change your skin color.

    It is not a slippery slope.

    Quote from bocephus
    Again, the article doesnt really have enough information. Was she a long time employee? Was the practice in place when she started? If and when was there a grace period for her to change? Were the proper steps taken in dismissing her?

    The HuffPuff Post is not known for "complete" coverage of stories when "complete" coverage would make the story not a story. The only piece of information we get is that she was on the job six weeks when she was told she could not come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. And apparently, the ACLU is siding with the business against her.

    Quote from bocephus
    Discrimination is discrimination, the reasoning behind it doesnt matter.

    As many others love to point out, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. This is not discrimination. She was told she could not smell like cigarette smoke on company property. She continued to smell like cigarette smoke. She was terminated. I, personally, will not date a woman who smokes - does that mean I should be sued for discrimination by potential dates?

    EDIT: Damn...looks like me and one of my nemesis are in agreement again in a thread. Maybe 12/21/2012 will be the end of the world, and this is a sign of the apocalypse.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from azmod
    Why are people assuming that if the other movie goers were armed it would have stopped or even lessened the tragedy?

    I haven't seen anyone assume that. We are just pointing out that the theater was designated as a "gun-free" zone by the owners. It COULD have ended the situation sooner and with less causalities, or it COULD have made it worse. But other "massacres" could have been easily mitigated by allowing license people to carry their sidearms - such as Virginia Tech or Columbine. To prove this point, one "massacre" was mitigated because the school (Appalachian School of Law) did permit licensed students and faculty to carry - two armed students subdued the gun man and held him until police arrived after only three casualties. Compare 3 casualties at the Appalachian School of Law to the 32 at Virginia Tech (including the gunman) and 15 at Columbine (including the two gunmen).

    Quote from azmod
    This does not even account for the people who would have panicked, pulled out their guns and then started firing at anyone near them.

    You'd be surprised how hard it is to shoot another person, even if you're trained to do it (like the Navy PO3 and the Air Force SSgt in the audience would have been trained to do as members of the military). People, especially licensed CCW permit holders, most likely would have not done that. But it pure speculation on both our parts - you are speculating a worst-case-scenario and I am speculating a best-case-scenario.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Catmurderer
    Ok, I'm a bit confused here. Is it really that crazy to think that people did not even consider to bring a gun with them to a movie theater?

    No, it's not really that crazy because registered CCW permit holders are the least likely person to ever shoot someone.

    That is statistical - the amount of people shot and killed by registered CCW permit holders not in a self-defense/justifiable homicide situation is below 500...since May 2007. In the past 62 months, 463 people have been killed by registered CCW permit holders in 343 incidents in 32 states. That is 7.468 people killed by lawful CCW permit holders in non-self defense situations per month.

    http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

    Now let's compare that with the murder rate of just one city (Chicago) from a similar time frame.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
    http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/#chicago-reaches-250-homicides-for-2012

    442 homicides in 2007, 510 homicides in 2008, 458 homicides in 2009, 449 homicides in 2010, 440 homicides in 2011, and 250 homicides so far in 2012 as of one month ago. So for a similar time frame, that is 2,549 homicides in the same time frame...from just one city (that happens to have very strict gun control).

    So just one city in one state has a much higher homicide rate than all the CCW permit holders in 32 states.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/#.UBL2DqPz3Rw

    As of this article from one year ago, there are an estimated 6,000,000 CCW permits in circulation. Out of the 6,000,000, only 343 CCW permit holders have committed non-justifiable homicide (as per the VPC link). That means 0.00005716% of CCW permit holders have committed homicide. Or for every CCW permit holder that has committed homicide, 17,492.711 have not.

    Clearly, law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are not who you have to be worried about. But law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are who get demonized by the left wing every time someone is shot.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Siorai
    Gary Johnson is running as the Libertarian presidential candidate and this man should be heard. There is another option besides Obama or Romney. A vote unused is truly wasted. Vote Libertarian with me and help create some real change! http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

    Unfortunately, there is little to no chance of anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican getting elected. Thus a vote for a third party Presidential candidate is a vote wasted, or a vote for the incumbent.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Catmurderer
    They didn't take guns into the theater because its a societal norm. Its the same reason you don't take guns into Chuckie-Cheeses. As much as you can bet that guns would have helped, I can bet that people who went to the theater did not think about taking a gun with them... because it is the societal norm.

    You can claim that, because it fits your views of society. But that does not change the fact that the Century 16 theater in Aurora, CO was a "gun-free zone" (except for the killer, it seems) by company policy. And I, as a law abiding CCW permit holder, also do not carry in any areas that are designated as "gun-free" zones - such as banks (which, oddly enough, being "gun-free" zones doesn't stop armed robberies...)

    http://news.investors.com/article/619196/201207231853/aurora-colorado-theater-gun-free-zone.htm

    Colorado is a concealed-carry state, as was Virginia at the time of the Virginia Tech shootings. But like Virginia Tech, according to World Net Daily, the Century 16 theater's parent, Cinemark Holdings Inc., has a strict "gun-free" policy at all of its 459 theaters, even for those who have concealed carry permits.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Orgmarr
    That to me really is the main thing. It like some of the old sayings, locks just keep a honest man honest. It does nothing to keep a thief out.

    I have all my guns legally, carry them legally, keep them locked in safes when not in use, and teach anyone who will listen to me how to handle a weapon safely. Make it illegal and I won't have a gun anymore because I am a law abiding citizen. (Granted I would fight the law, but anyway.) Criminals and those who want to do my family harm will still have a gun.

    And the reason that no one in that theater was armed?

    Because they too are law abiding citizens and the rules for the theater are "no guns." The rules stopped the law abiding citizens from carrying, but had absolutely no impact on the gunman bringing guns into the theater to kill people.

    Gun control laws only work on people who follow the laws.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Too Many Guns in the U.S. -- or Too Few?

    Good article posted today by Carl M. Cannon. It opens with a 2007 case where an armed parishioner at a church saved almost everyone's lives (the two exceptions being a pair of sisters who were killed and their parents who were shot when they left church early). It talks about what led up to the ill-named "Federal Assault Weapons Ban," and puts the estimated 270 daily shootings we have in this country into perspective (estimated 300,000,000 guns in the United States, yet only 98,000 shootings a year [fatal and nonfatal] meaning only 0.000326% of guns in this nation are involved in a shooting every year, or for ever gun used in a shooting 3,061.224 are not - since Knaut loves statistics so much).

    It then talks about the typical left wing response to atrocities like this, including the assumption that if guns were banned it wouldn't have happened (which is not necessarily true - Timothy McVeigh managed to kill a lot of people without using a firearm in Oklahoma City) and Mayor Bloomberg's urging to police across the nation to go on strike in protest of "lax" gun laws (which is illegal, police are not permitted to strike).

    It follows up near the end with the stories of two women - one in Texas who watched a gun man kill her mother and father in a public cafeteria. She owned a pistol and had a permit to carry, but Texas law at the time forbid her from carrying in that cafeteria. She felt that if the laws had been different, she could have saved her parents instead of watching them die - she went on to become a politician who fought for people's right to a gun. The other is a woman whose husband was murdered and son was seriously wounded in New York City by an immigrant who lost it on a subway train in 1993. She went on to become a gun control activist who fought against people's right to a gun.

    It ends with three stories. One is about a shooting in 1903 where a person wanted to stop the shooter, but was unarmed and no one would give him a gun to stop the shooter (and those who were armed refused to take again). The next story is from 1949, where an armed civilian shot a rampaging shooter once, but didn't kill him and couldn't muster the nerve to finish him. And the final story ends the story that it opened with, the church shooting in 2007 where none of the armed volunteer guards would give a Viet Nam vet their gun to take down the approaching shooter who had just murdered two sisters and wounded their parents, leaving it up to a single armed parishioner to stop the gunman and thus saving the lives of every single person still in that church.

    If she had not been armed in church that day and her premonitions about the shooter had no led her to suggest armed volunteer guards...a lot more people would have died on Sunday, December 9th, 2007.

    Guns in the hands of criminals kill people.

    Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (typically) save people.

    Passing gun control laws only takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving the criminals armed and the citizens disarmed.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Knautschke
    And you want to arm them.

    Without access to guns, they would likely resort to more effective and cheaper (but slightly more work to make) homemade explosives that would leave less survivors and have more fatalities.

    Quote from Knautschke
    Even IF the crime rate would stay constant, at the same time, the number of accidents involving guns would go down, which would be already a positive trend. At the same time, there are in the USA about 18 times as many people, of a 100k sample, shot, than in Germany. I don't mention Germany here that often, because I think it's superior in anything, but simply because I know the statistics very well.

    So accidents go down...that is worth disarming people and making everyone a disarmed victim in waiting for a criminal?

    Quote from Knautschke
    People have nothing to fear because they are armed? That makes no sense at all. People get the guns after all because they are scared, and they're scared because other people have guns. And that makes more people beeing armed, which scares more people, and in the end everyone is scared, armed and triggerhappy. And that should be a good situation to be in?

    Maybe that is what you are taught in Germany, as to why Americans have guns and buy guns. But I've never bought a gun out of fear. I am armed almost 24/7, yes - because it is my Constitutional right. I am not scared, and I am not trigger happy. And since you love statistics so much, why don't you go look up the rate at which registered concealed carry license holders commit violence crimes. Here's a hint...it's a fraction of a percent.

    Quote from Knautschke
    "We give people devices designed for nothing but murder, for the reason that they otherwise build more dangerous weapons"? That makes no sense either. According to that logic, we'd have bombs exploding in Sweden, Germany and other countries with strict weapon laws every few minutes. But they don't. Shootings happen there nearly only with weapons people acquired legally. If people don't have immediate access to guns, then they seem to change their plans.

    The difference is culture, not access. Look at Switzerland - the have a higher rate of gun ownership than the US, but less crime. Unfortunately, American culture has come to the point that it glorifies crime and such in some areas. That is the problem - the culture needs addressed, not guns. We already have almost 15,000 gun control laws on the books. We don't need more.

    Quote from Knautschke
    I can go to bed and have a healthy deep happy sleep, without needing firearms under my pillow, because I'm afraid that crazy murderers break into my house any second. If those crazy murderers are that common in the USA, then maybe something should be done about those, instead of handing out weapons to everyone.

    You truly are ignorant of the process of getting a gun if you think we are "handing out weapons to everyone." If we were "handing out weapons to everyone," then the business of selling illegal guns to criminals wouldn't be big in this country. In fact, pretty much every single post of yours' shows you are ignorant of US gun laws.

    Quote from Knautschke
    Tools with the only purpose of murdering people. Tools that are used constantly to kill people, on purpose or by accident. And as said, the argument "if we don't give them lethal weapons, they build more lethal ones" makes no sense either. Maybe the Colorado guy would have built bombs. Maybe he would have acquired guns illegally. Maybe he'd have also changed his plans. I don't know that, and you don't know that either.

    Wrong again. Guns are used for a lot more than "murdering people." Also, there is no such thing as "accidental" murder. Maybe you should do some research before spouting that nonsensical European anti-American propaganda.

    Quote from Knautschke
    What do cards have to do with that? Current modern societies depend on cars. Cars have a purpose. They can be used for something actually useful, instead of just murdering people.

    Guns are used for something actually useful. Cars, however, have no purpose and we can just use public transportation. Therefore, we should have strict car control laws because cars are capable of killing people and we have an alternative to cars.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Knautschke
    If you give about every person a gun, then you don't make people more safe. You just increase the likelyhood of people starting to kill each other. I prefer a country, where I can say, that the police and the military have the job of protecting law abiding citizens, instead of living in a country, where each person is a ticking timebomb.

    Each person is a ticking time bomb already. Even if, somehow, the US government was able to take all the guns out of everyone's hands tomorrow...crime rate would likely remain constant. Perhaps even rise because now criminals know their victims are unarmed and they have nothing to fear.

    As for mass killings like this fruit loop did...guns actually limit the damage and casualties because most idiots who use them like this guy did don't know how to use them. If you give someone like me (ex-military) an AR-15 with a drum magazine...there are going to be a lot more than 12 dead and 60ish people wounded in that theater. If he hadn't had firearms available, he could have easily (al biet with a bit more physical labor) acquired the materials to construct a few dozen bombs made from every day materials that would arouse no more suspicion than buying the stuff to make a ham sandwich for lunch. A couple bombs made out of homemade plastic explosives rolled in steel ball bearings would have killed a lot more people (and made what non-fatal injuries that happened a surgeon's nightmare). Or just one molotov cocktail (even easier to make than a bomb) dropped after securing the main doors, and then duck out the fire escape and wedge something under the door to prevent it from opening - everyone is dead, slowly.

    You prefer a country where the police and military have the job of protecting law abiding citizens. That is your personal preference. I prefer a country where when seconds count and the police are minutes away...my Glock 17 is always within reach.

    Guns are just a tool. A dangerous tool in the hands of some (but not most) people, but a tool none the less. And significantly less dangerous than a combination of the Internet, some money, and a trip to the hardware store. And until more people are killed annually in the US by guns than by cars, I will never support any kind of gun control measures that go beyond common sense measures.

    Quote from Knautschke
    The difference is that the items you mentioned have an actual use, besides murdering people.

    So do guns. Guns of plenty of uses "besides murdering people."
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on *Why* is the Black Lotus so Valuable?
    Quote from DanzBorin
    Solaran, how goes the P(ony)9? I hadn't seen any posts in the pimp thread in a while. Smile

    They're done. Now I'm working on Guru Unlimited Duals and Four Seasons of Workshops. And then perhaps a backup set of Power Nine in case a hater convinces the judges at Worlds they are too altered - a Beta backup set, naturally.

    My avatar is a cropped scan of the Lotus.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    For every 1 soldier in the US military (between Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard) active or reserves, there are 107.7 civilians.

    So unless each soldier is able to kill 107.7 people before being killed himself, they do not face good odds in a new revolution.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Jimbo
    Insurgencies don't beat invaders. The colonial army under Washington got its ass kicked in every single confrontation with the British that didn't involve them being out of ammo.

    They win by attrition, by making the occupation unprofitable for the invading force.

    Isn't that still the insurgency beating the invaders? When someone invades, the citizens fight back, and then the invaders leave for whatever reason...

    Is it still not a victory for the insurgency/rebels/guerrillas?

    Here's a fun fact for you _:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military

    There are 1,456,862 active duty members of the US military when this article was last updated. And there are 1,458,500 reserve members of the US military. So assuming every reservist was called up and no one defected, there would be an estimated 2,915,362 soldiers at the disposal of the US government. As per the most recent census, there is an estimated 313,986,000 in this country. That means there would be an estimated 311,070,638 more citizens and possible insurgents than there would be military. The US military accounts for 0.928% of the US population.

    I don't foresee less than 1% of the population being able to properly control or contain the other 99% in a guerrilla campaign.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    this is my point. Military wins unless we have access to those materials. Everyone here has said "military doesn't auto-win! Look at X insurgency" but every single iteration of X insurgency has access to those weapons. It literally directly responds below to your claims of Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency has access to all of those weapons.

    To imagine that we could kill enough military quickly enough to get weapons quickly enough to mount a successful insurrection is wishful thinking.

    To you, it is wishful thinking because it defeats your position on the topic. To the rest of us, especially those of us with a military background, it is a perfectly viable and reasonable and realistic possibility that could lead to a numerically superior yet initially under-equipped force beating a numerically inferior yet initially better-equipped force.

    It has been demonstrated time and again throughout history, where an insurrection/rebellion/guerrilla organization was able to equip itself better through ambushes against the invaders and then beat the invaders back.

    It is sad to see an American, of all people, claim this doesn't work because that is exactly how Americans got their independence from Britain - by a guerrilla campaign that pitted untrained and under-equipped, but numerically superior, farmers against the significantly smaller but better trained and equipped British Army.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on *Why* is the Black Lotus so Valuable?
    Quote from Eirfro
    I bought my black lotus at a GP... I believe there were about 4 total in all the dealers cases.

    I just got back from GP: Columbus (Modern this time), and I probably saw a good 30-40 Black Lotuses in all the vendor cases combined. And I remember back at the 2010 GP: Columbus (Legacy that time), SCG alone had a stack of at least 30 in their case, and another 30 or so across all the other vendors.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    Seriously, your go to argument is Red Dawn?

    Until you provide me something substantial I'm just going to continue laughing at you. Also, your snide remarks about all things left wing do not an argument make. They do however look really really stupid. Just like you CONSTANTLY bitch about people stereotyping one person as the entirety of the right wing (Think: Bush) and you do the exact same thing to Timothy Mimeslayer. Are you at least cognizant of your hypocrisy?

    I've given you plenty of substantial evidence, including first hand experience with various weapons from my time in the military. And you've dismissed everything because it runs contrary to your extreme leftist beliefs.

    As for Timothy, he has (in the past) refused to accept my arguments because I cited Wikipedia. So have you. And so have others on the left wing. Now Timothy is saying Wikipedia is a fine source. That is major backpedaling, and I'm throwing it back at him just like how you and him and other lefties throw any backpedaling the right wing does back at the right wing.

    Right now, I am using every tactic the left wing uses. Doesn't taste so good when people do it right back at you, does it? After all, if you can't beat them...join them. Your tactics are now mine.

    Quote from _
    Re: Guerilla warfare

    They have RPGs, bombs, and fully automatic weapons. Are you suggesting America should have those things in civilian hands as well?

    So me where I said that American citizens should have access to that grade of weaponry. Go ahead...I'll wait. Just make sure it's a proper quote with the automated link included in it that happens whenever you use the QUOTE button on these forums.

    The simple fact is that a lot of the stuff our military has available to it is absolutely useless in a guerrilla warfare campaign, which is exactly what the reserve militia that we are all members of (as per the Militia Act of 1903, I did previously cite a source for this in this thread - it is still standing law as well under 10 USC 232 or 10 USC 323 [I forget which]) would be doing in the event of a foreign invasion or government oppression. That is why the US military is so ineffective at fighting al-Qaeda - just like the British during the American Revolution, we are expecting a stand up fight against an established and uniformed military force, not a guerrilla campaign. That is why we rolled over the uniformed Iraqi military in the beginning of the Iraq War, and have been mired ever since by insurgents.

    And if you think the citizens of this country would not have military grade weapons within a few weeks of a new revolution (even if the military did not side with the citizens), you are very badly mistaken. Every soldier who died in an ambush would help arm the citizens with military weapons. Every vehicle that is disabled but not destroyed would help arm the citizens with military weapons. And there would certainly be plenty of "defectors" who would disappear on patrols and resurface on the other side of the field later on.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    "better equipped" didn't mean tanks and helicopters back then. It meant guns that were more accurate.

    To believe that you can draw a comparison between more accurate guns versus a ****ing air force and, did I mention tanks is asinine.

    1) An Air Force is notoriously bad against scattered infantry. Especially if the infantry is under cover. So the Air Force would be useless against guerrillas in the woods harassing a patrol with long range shots.

    2) The commercially available bolt action .50BMG Barrett rifle (and yes, people do use .50BMG rifles to hunt large game, and there is a Fifty Cal Shooters Association that does competitions on vacant air strips) can disable a tank with one shot. This is achieved by hitting it at any of the various "soft points" that are between the turret and main body of the tank. While a rather small point on a tank as a whole, they are large enough for a skilled marksman to hit.

    I think you should watch Red Dawn. Yes, it is a movie and we know movies aren't perfect (except for movies like Gasland and SiCKO...you know, the pro-left wing propaganda films - those are 100% accurate!). But it shows what a guerrilla campaign could be like against a foreign invader (or an oppressive government).
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Highroller
    Well also, it seems that gun sales are soaring in Colorado.

    Please don't feed the...troll? Or whatever it is.

    They just joined today, their very first post ever was in this thread, and they linked to a blog site. Looks like a spammer or advertiser or something.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Cervid
    You wouldn't say that a plane flying overhead is north of you, would you? Words have meanings, and saying that Mexico is 'beneath' the US is incorrect.

    North, South, East, and West are compass points and are based off the magnetic north and magnetic south poles.

    Of course a plane flying overhead is above me. Just like because of the curvature of the planet, Mexico is below (or beneath) my current physical location on the planet (based on the popular axis that globes are shown on).

    But regardless, we are certainly off topic right now.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Cervid
    Yes, but you can't wade across it.

    I didn't say you COULD wade across it. I said you DAMNED NEAR COULD wade across it. As I said before, 100 feet of water is not that deep. You could easily swim the Strait today (if you can account for current and the cold), and previously people have migrated to North America from Siberia using the Strait...when it could be waded. I'm referring to the migration of the ancestors of the modern American Indians.

    Quote from Cervid
    Beneath us is rock. They are south of us. The fact that they are south of us on a map is completely arbitrary anyways. You can turn a globe upside down and it's still correct.

    Semantics. As far as I'm concerned, they are beneath me - physically, not figuratively. That is how I was raised and taught in the 1980s and 1990s. Just like as far as I'm concerned, gender is what you are born as, not what you feel like you should be.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Vistella
    i know its hard to read a discussion in context, but try it some time, it helps

    @SolX: yes, i did indeed post a picture...so youre not reading my posts, why shall i read yours?

    You added that picture after I had already begun typing my response to you (you edited the post at 12:55, and my post went up at 12:57). Editing a post and then responding to my response with "I used a picture to show you what I meant!" is like me telling a cop "But officer, I began slowing down when I saw your lights. Why should I still get a speeding ticket?"

    I have read every single one of your posts. And I've, politely at that, pointed out how you are wrong in every single one of your posts. Others have told you that you are wrong as well. And your basic response is "I don't care about technical differences, all that matters is that I think it's an assault rifle and you shouldn't own assault rifles."

    Clearly, you are just ignoring all the people who have told you that you are wrong, and continue spewing your incorrect beliefs as if you're right and we're all wrong.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on *Why* is the Black Lotus so Valuable?
    Quote from AdamM
    Also the fact there are only 5000 or so tournament-legal ones makes it cost more.

    Despite the fact that actual print run information was not released for Unlimited, I believe it is estimated that there are upwards of 20,000 tournament-legal Black Lotuses printed. Naturally, that number is much smaller today. But if you go to any given Grand Prix, even a Standard or Limited one, you can find a hundred or so Black Lotuses in dealer cases despite Vintage not being a GP format (Oh, how I wish it was...I'd travel around the world for a Vintage GP).
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Cervid
    There are far more than two countries in what is considered North America.

    I was being very simplistic. Apparently, being too accurate in responses in this thread is a bad thing.

    Quote from Cervid
    Rolleyes You must have LONG legs. The shallower points of the Bering Strait are still around 100 feet deep.

    As someone who has taken a swim in over 16,000 feet of water (swim call on my ship in the Pacific during my time in the Navy), 100 feet is pretty shallow.

    Quote from Cervid
    I prefer "south of us". Underneath and beneath, in addition to being inaccurate, sounds derogatory.

    Actually, it is accurate. If you look at how the US sits on the planet on it's axis, Central and South America are beneath us based on the curvature of the planet. And a lot of words are derogatory...if we somehow managed to use only words that are not derogatory in any context, our vocabulary would shrink dramatically overnight.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Highroller
    Er, we're not an island. Canada sent a pretty effective message one time as to how not-island-like at all we are.

    Yeah...the US is an island. That's hilarious. We are an island...except for Canada above us comprising the other half of North America, which is also essentially connected to Russia (while the land bridge is not truly there anymore, you can damn near wade from Alaska to Russia in some areas that water is so shallow). And we got Central America underneath us. And beneath them, we have South America.

    America is not an island by any stretch of the imagination.

    And I'm just expanding on your point Highroller. I'm too much of a lazy American to go find Vistella's post and quote it.

    Quote from Jimbo
    The Militia is the responsibility of the State, and the highest authority it responds to is the Governor. The decentralized pattern of militia management only ended with the Civil War. The US did not have a professional army until then, which is why it got its ass kicked so badly during the War of 1812, among other reasons.

    The Militia Act of 1903 would like to have a word with you, specifically the part that creates the "reserve militia" or "unorganized militia" that consists of every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45, and all former servicemen up to the age of 65.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29#The_reserve_militia
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Catmurderer
    "THE LEFT WING HAS SPOKEN! WIKIPEDIA IS AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR DEBATES!
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Timothy, Mimeslayer
    Third, Wikipedia is a fine source of info.
    (Quote taken from the thread about Gun Control in the Debate Forum)"

    Since this comes from this thread, last night I did some heavy research into crime statistics. Wiki was the only thing that compiled information. Some of the sources had even 404'd. The other side is that the info wasn't anywhere else.

    (Specifically talking about this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#International_comparison) I could not find a similar type of side by side comparison anywhere.

    Is this bad data? Should we throw it out just because it is wiki?

    I've always considered Wikipedia to be a fine source of information, since most of the data is vetted. And I've typically been told by many members of the left wing that they will not accept Wikipedia in debates, and usually after Wikipedia contradicts their position.

    But apparently it's a fine source when it supports the left wing position.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on *Why* is the Black Lotus so Valuable?
    The problem with this is that BL is exactly as rare as a slew of other ABU rare cards that are nowhere near close to the same value such as Natural Selection (about $40 for Beta). All of the other cards on there only exist in dozens or hundreds of copies. There were over 20,000 tournament legal lotuses printed. 4,300 if you only count Alpha/Beta. It doesn't belong on that list. I can think of dozens of better examples. It is only up there because of its value.

    There are more tournament legal Black Lotus in the world than Wood Elementals. FACT.

    I think it's more fun to compare it to Chaoslace from Beta. SCG sells NM/M Beta Chaoslace for $9.99, and NM/M Beta Black Lotus for $3499.99.

    And while the Black Lotus is certainly the most expensive tournament legal card that is not a misprint (I'm looking at you, Blue Hurricane!), it is not the most powerful. The Moxen are arguable more powerful than the Lotus due to multiple uses, Time Vault is definitely more powerful since it generates infinite turns (with Voltaic Key or Tezzeret the Seeker), and Yawgmoth's Will didn't get the nickname Yawgmoth's Win for no reason. In fact, after the first few turns of the game...the Lotus is often a dead draw (except in a few corner cases, which I've had happen to me [seriously] only once or twice in all the years I've played Vintage).
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Vistella
    english is my 3rd language, sry for that, but what i described is what i meant as bolt-action. that extra trigger thing which you have to pull to shoot again...should have been clear after i even posted a freaking picture

    First off, I've been to Germany (specifically, Kiel and Wilhelmshaven). Never had an issue with language barrier - every German there spoke very good English.

    Second, the other German in this thread has no problem communicating in English.

    Third, you never posted a picture. And the description you gave was the description of a semiautomatic.

    Quote from Vistella
    also i never said that the AR-15 fires multiple rounds per shot, i just asked if it does

    You asked a question that was written a a rhetorical question. Specifically the following:

    Quote from Vistella »
    can it shoot more then 1 bullet by pressing the trigger once?
    yes? so its (for me) and assault rifle and not a hunting rifle

    When you ask a question and immediately answer your own question, it becomes rhetorical question that is used to try and make a point. By the way that quote is written, you are stating that an AR-15 can fire more than one round per trigger pull, and as such it is an assault rifle and not a hunting rifle.

    Multiple people have told you that you are wrong and that the AR-15 is semiautomatic. You also quoted Wikipedia earlier, and pointed to one sentence that said the first AR-15s were selective fire weapons, to back up your point that the AR-15 is an assault rifle. I then took that exact same Wikipedia entry, and showed you where it says that the AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle and that the selective fire versions are called M-16s.

    Quote from Vistella
    now back the points which still stands and you still failed to address

    I and others have addressed your points multiple times, and dissected them. Accept that you have been proven wrong by multiple people and move on.

    Quote from FaheyUSMC
    The M16A4 (the current model) has a safe, semi, and burst settings. It is possible, by filing down a certain pin, to turn the weapon into a fully-automatic variant, which is illegal in the United States.

    But let's be honest, would criminals care?

    It's my understanding that even having a burst setting makes the weapon illegal anyways. Burst is classified as an automatic mode of firing, since one trigger pull leads to more than one round firing.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Vistella
    while i might not be a weapon expert, my point still stands and you didnt disprove it yet

    also i see no "we", i see only "you" going technical on me abotu what is an assault rifle and what isnt...and i told you i dont care about that technical stuff as i already explained what i am talking about...see the quote

    First off, the bolded text in your own quote is what semi-automatic is. And secondly, your point does not still stand because it has been disproven on multiple posts in this thread, both before and after you made it.

    for hunting you use bolt-action rifles (think that is the word, where you have to pull a trigger after each shot)
    Any weapon that fires one round per pull of the trigger is a semiautomatic weapon. A bolt-action rifle is a rifle with a manually operated action that does not automatically eject the spent cartridge and load a fresh one.

    Semiautomatic: You pull the trigger. The chambered round fires, is automatically ejected and a fresh round is loaded into the chamber. You have to pull the trigger after each shot. This is what the AR-15 is.

    Automatic: You pull and hold the trigger. For the entire time the trigger is held, the gun will fire a round, eject the spent round, load a fresh round, and fire again. This is what the M-4 is.

    Bolt-action: You manually operate the action with the bolt. Like the semiautomatic, it fires one round per trigger pull. The most popular sniper rifles in the US (the M40) is a military-modified version of the civilian available Remington 700 bolt-action rifle.

    And second, Khorne Flakes has also told you that you are wrong, that the AR-15 is semiautomatic and does not fire multiple rounds per trigger pull.

    Quote from Khorne Flakes »
    Quote from Vistella »
    can it shoot more then 1 bullet by pressing the trigger once?
    yes?
    No. If it did it would be legally classified as a "machine gun" and only available under strict restrictions. The most significant one is that civilians may only purchase such a weapon if it was manufactured or imported before 1986, which makes automatic weapons an extremely costly affair. And semi-auto weapons which can be easily modified for full auto are completely illegal, even if you were allowed to own an automatic weapon.

    Yes, I know many European papers reported the end of the AWB as basically "everybody can buy machine guns"...

    That is two people, who typically disagree on a lot of topics, who are telling you that your belief that the AR-15 fires multiple rounds per trigger pull are wrong.

    Quote from YamahaR1
    How many posts did it take you before saying that it fires one round per trigger pull? All of your posts leading up to that point are just bickering over loosely used terminology. Assault rifle vs machine gun vs semi automatic rifle has always been cloudy among conversation.

    Actually, from pretty much my first post I've said that the AR-15 is semiautomatic (fires one round per trigger pull) and does not meet the technical requirement of being selective mode firing capable with a minimum of one automatic setting to be classified as an assault rifle.

    Quote from YamahaR1
    Being EU has nothing to do with it. Lay off. I said before, damn near everyone I know who owns an AR-15 calls it an assault rifle. Damn near everyone else refers to fully automatic weapons as machine guns. I live in America so obviously your nationality has little to do with it.

    Then damn near everyone you know who owns an AR-15 is calling it the wrong thing. And anyone who refers to any given automatic as a machine gun is also wrong.

    Quote from YamahaR1
    Your picking fly **** out of pepper, nothing more. We get it. Its not officially called an assault rifle. I'm still going to casually refer to it as such.

    And I will still tell you that you are wrong. Using the wrong term casually leads to confusions exactly like this one involving Vistella.

    Quote from YamahaR1
    Back on topic about gun control please.

    This is perfectly on topic for gun control.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Vistella
    little followup snip:

    scenario 1:
    owning an AR-15 - legal
    making it fullauto - illegal

    scenario 2:
    owning an AR-15 - illegal
    making it fullauto - illegal

    people are less likly to convert it in scenario 2 as covering the bases (which is owning it in the first place) is way harder to do then in scenario 1

    So because AR-15s are legal and it is remotely possible to convert it to automatic, we should ban all AR-15s?

    Well damn...since cars are legal and it is remotely possible to commit a crime with a car, clearly we need to ban all cars.

    After all, it will save lives. People can just use a bus to get from point A to point B. Just like they can wait for the police to save their life when an armed person breaks into their house.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Vistella
    still, its not bolt-action...and thats what i was talking about earlier...you would know that if youve read my posts.
    yes i know, in that regard my post with the question you answered was abit out of place, the overall point still stands though

    No, you are claiming that an AR-15 fires multiple rounds per pull of the trigger. Multiple people have told you that you are wrong. And still you refuse to accept the fact that have been put in front of you.

    I have read all of your posts in this thread. And you are very poorly informed about firearms, which is understandable because you are European and guns are very highly demonized in most European nations. We are trying to correct and enlighten you, and all you are doing is telling us we are wrong and you are right and we aren't understanding your position.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Khorne Flakes »
    There is some binding legal and technical framework to classify different kinds of small arms? Where can I find that wondrous thing? Wink

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

    Specifically:

    Quote from Wikipedia Entry on Assault Rifle »

    The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] to describe the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently renamed Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.
    The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

    • It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
    • It must be capable of selective fire;
    • It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
    • Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
    • And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)
    Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
    The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.
    The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."[7]


    And for further clarification of the bolded text:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire

    Quote from Wikipedia Entry on Selective Fire »
    A selective fire firearm has at least one semi–automatic and one automatic mode, which is activated by means of a selector which varies depending on the weapon's design. Some selective fire weapons utilize burst fire mechanisms to limit the maximum or total number of shots fired automatically in this mode. The most common limits are two or three rounds per pull of the trigger.


    The AR-15 is not capable of an automatic mode of fire, and as such is not an assault rifle. Neither is the SKS. Or any rifle sold over-the-counter in this country.

    Quote from Vistella
    can it shoot more then 1 bullet by pressing the trigger once?
    yes? so its (for me) and assault rifle and not a hunting rifle

    just cause you use a rocket launcher to hunt bears doesnt make it a hunting rifle

    go technical on me all you want, i wont care as my point stands and you cant disproove it

    Actually Vistella, it can't. The AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle, meaning it can only fire one round each time you pull the trigger. Pull the trigger and immediately let it go, and the rifle fires one round. Pull the trigger and hold it down and move it around like you're Rambo, it still only fires one round and you look like an idiot.

    Quote from Vistella
    and as ive read the wiki article abit:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

    second paragraph, first sentance

    so much for it not beeing an assault rifle

    You're not helping your case at all.

    Quote from Wikipedia Entry on AR-15 »
    The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation. It is manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials.

    The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] The name "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark, which refers only to the semi-automatic rifle.

    The civilian available AR-15 is semiautomatic only and is not an assault rifle.

    The military available M-16 and M-4 are selective fire capable and are assault rifles.

    Quote from sdematt
    So I just want to make sure, an AR-15 cannot be easily converted to a fully automatic rifle with modifications?

    It CAN be converted, yes. But the conversion process is not easy, it requires very precise tooling, and it is a felony.

    Quote from sdematt
    @ Person who asked if assault weapons could be bought easily in the US:

    Yes.

    -Matt

    If you are referring to weapons that meet the political definition of "assault weapon" (a term invented in 1994 to scare people), then yes - they can be easily bought in the US. If you are referring to true assault rifles, then no - they cannot be easily (or cheaply) in the US.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Vistella
    the AR-15 is an assautlrifle in the way i see them and talk about them
    and again: sportshooting =/= hunting

    Except the AR-15 does not meet the technical or legal requirements to be classified as an assault rifle. Continuing to claim that an AR-15 is an assault rifle after it has been proven that it is not is just pure ignorance and refusal to accept the truth because it erodes your position.

    The AR-15 is not capable of selective mode firing. It is not an assault rifle, because one of the requirements of an assault rifle is that the rifle is capable of selective mode firing with at least one automatic setting (be it true automatic or burst fire).

    And again, the AR-15 is the most popular small game hunting rifle in the United States. It has a history of being a hunting rifle, this is not a new development. It is also a very popular short shooting rifle. This, too, is not a new development.

    Who said I had anything against sheer numbers? I have a problem with it when people are shown they are wrong and then they change it around to make it seem like they are right ie moving the goal posts.

    Clearly, you have a problem with people using sheer numbers when it does not support your position.

    Also good luck waging a war against the government from hicksvile, Mississippi.

    Who said anything about Mississippi? There is a lot of covered terrain that at least 18,000,000 dedicated hunters (and who knows how many sport shooters) could use to conduct guerrilla warfare against an enemy.

    Thirdly, I have never.criticized you for using Wikipedia thank you very much.

    I'm pretty sure you have on several occasions. But whatever. Next time it happens, I'll have a quote from you saying Wikipedia is a fine source ready.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    First off, six percent is not a large percentage. Discussing the sheer numbers is merely moving the goal posts.

    I don't recall you complaining when the left wing does exactly this. And it does this frequently - an excellent example would be the running body count the media kept of the Iraq War while Bush was President (and suddenly stopped doing when Obama became President). They used the actual number instead of a percentage, because saying "X,XXX soldiers" sounds much larger than saying "0.X% of deployed soldiers."

    Can't have it both ways Timmy. Either you condemn everyone who does this, including lefties, or you condone the use of this tactic by everyone, including righties.

    Second, people in rural areas may have a high incidence of hunting, but most people don't live in rural areas.

    Most people may not live in rural areas, but a lot still do. Enough to wage an effective guerrilla campaign against an invader or oppressive government.

    Third, Wikipedia is a fine source of info.

    When it supports your position, apparently. But when I cite Wikipedia or another source, you read me the riot act about using Wikipedia and how Wikipedia is not a legit source.

    Make up your mind.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Vistella
    - the sports gun can be stored whereever you do your shooting (thats why i always refer to the personal gun stored at home which you dont)

    Why would you leave your personal property someplace that isn't under your control? Especially property that is serialized, registered to you, and if used in a crime can be traced back to you by ballistics?

    Quote from Vistella
    - hunting rifles arent the problem since most shootings are done with assault rifles, pistols or semi-automatic weapons...for hunting you use bolt-action rifles (think that is the word, where you have to pull a trigger after each shot)...those are just unsuited for public shootings....an you just dont hunt that dear with your AK-47...

    Assault rifles are rarely used in shootings because they are extremely rare outside of military or police hands. An AR-15 or an SKS are not assault rifles. Pistols are used for types of hunting and almost all personal defense. And semi-automatic weapons are the most popular sport shooting weapons.

    As for the AR-15, it is the most popular small game rifle in the United States.

    Quote from Vistella
    - still dont buy the protection thing as it works without guns in other countries too

    And it works with guns in other countries as well. As was referenced earlier, look at Switzerland. They have a higher rate of gun ownership than the US, and less crime.

    Guns are not the problem. The problem is cultural. Taking action against guns will not address or solve the underlying problem.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Vistella
    thats just a bad argument and has nothing to do with guns as cars are needed to get from A to B, yet a personal gun is totally unneeded right now

    Not true. A gun is needed for three things (at least in America): Hunting, recreational sport shooting, and personal protection. To which you will probably respond "You don't need to do any of those." To which I will respond "Well you don't need cars to get from A to B either. You can take public transportation."

    Quote from Vistella
    well, if that true, i give you that
    €: or not, see Timothys post Smile

    I was going to address Timmy's point in another line, but I can address them both here.

    As I've been told countless times by Timmy and others on his side of the aisle - Wikipedia is a terrible source because anyone can edit it.

    Hunting and recreational shooting/plinking are very popular past times in America. Especially in the more rural areas.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Vistella
    then why is it better for everyone have his own gun rather then storing the guns at a central place which you can gain access to if someone is invading?
    those 2 or more days you have as foresight are more then enough to get everyone a gun, yet all the accidents happening by private guns are taken away

    I'm not sure about Germany (I assume it's true as well), but here in America a lot more people are killed every year by cars than by guns. Perhaps we should take away everyone's car as well, then all those accidents would stop.

    Quote from Vistella
    yet the common citizen isnt an expierenced hunter, he is a banker, a lawer or a dog**** collector

    Not in America. Hunting is a very popular sport. A large percentage of Americans are experienced hunters.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from YamahaR1
    Actually it was the The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, not "semi-automatic Assault-styled Rifles" ban as your fix describes. Yes, the federal government used this term to describe exactly what you are describing. You are correct in that regard.

    ----------------------- tangent

    At any rate, in regard to banning so called assult weapons, the ban didn't cause any statistical decrease in crime, and these weapons are rarely used in gun related murders regardless

    For the 1994 "ban," the government created the term "assault weapon" (it was never used prior to 1994) to describe semiautomatic weapons that looked like assault rifles or met a minimum criteria of requirements that were common on automatic weapons. The "Assault Weapons" Ban didn't ban a single assault rifle, it just banned the weapons that looked like them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from _
    I hate when people infringe upon my God-given right to own a tank!


    Anyone who believes the right to bear arms actually means we have recourse against the government is fooling themselves. Even if every single non-military citizen had a fully automatic firearm with full tactical body armor, any violent uprising would be CRUSHED by the military. The ONLY way an uprising/coup could ever be successful is if the US military fought against the government. There is zero percent chance of success otherwise. So get off your high horse about the (in)ability to protect us from tyranny.

    Just like how the highly trained and better equipped British Army crushed that pesky rebellion of untrained farmers in the colonies back in the 1770s...

    Wait...

    The untrained farmers beat the better trained and equipped British Army.

    Pesky history getting in the way of the left wing fantasy world...guess they got to rewrite the American Revolution next to have defectors from the British Army helping them win.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Highroller
    Question for those arguing a link between firearms restriction and safety: My understanding is that Colorado makes it illegal for anyone to carry firearms in certain locations, one of them being movie theaters.

    Now, I don't know if this is true, so I definitely need someone to clarify on this. However, if it IS true, would anyone care to comment on that?

    It's my understanding that that is not Colorado law, but it a rule implemented by the company that runs the Century 16 theater.

    Quote from Highroller
    Is not the point of the Second Amendment specifically to ensure a recourse against the military and the police?

    I am pro-2nd Amendment, but I do support some common sense restrictions (such as background checks and preventing people with violent mental illnesses like paranoia and schizophrenia from owning guns). And owning a 100 round drum magazine for a semiautomatic rifle strikes me as unnecessary. That is not to say that I wouldn't want one myself - eventually I do plan on building my own AR-15 and certainly would not mind have a drum magazine. But I don't feel it is something a civilian truly needs - not that we "need" a lot of the things we have access to.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Highroller
    To be fair, though, my understanding of semi-automatics at least is that the difference between one and an automatic is just a few screws.

    It's a bit more than a few screws these days. And a felony charge. And as was pointed out earlier (in the original thread)...if you aren't perfectly precise, you risk the gun blowing up on you or it locking in a firing position and won't stop firing until the clip is empty (whether or not you're holding the trigger).

    Modifying a semiautomatic to be automatic is very dangerous, both to your physical well being and to your criminal background. Although to be fair, if you are modifying a semiautomatic to an automatic...you probably don't care about your criminal background.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Penn State Tragedy
    What about the student athletes who played for Penn State during those twelve years of wins they vacated? Did they deserve to have what they worked for and earned taken away from them? Are they somehow complicit in the crime and also deserved to be punished?
    Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from Zaphrasz
    So your plan is to take what are already the most vulnerable members of society, who are already disproportionately victims, and make them incapable of defending themselves? If fear of gun retaliation really prevented crimes, you've just created the perfect target; the only members of society who can't have guns. I hope you have a plan to protect them.

    How about we just set a requirement that if you have a clear background (no felonies at all, select misdemeanors okay, no history of mental illness such as paranoia or schizophrenia) and pass a basic gun safety and use course, you can purchase a firearm?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from freedom
    I'm only quoting you because it's a good starting point.

    Can anyone please define "mental illness" in the context of applying to own a firearm.
    The American Psychiatric Association once believed that homosexuality was a mental illness.

    I believe any mental illness that disqualifies a person from the death penalty on the basis that they did not understand the consequence of their actions should also disqualify people from owning firearms.

    If an adult with the mental development of a three year old cannot be sentenced to death for murder, then they also should not be permitted to own a firearm under the same justification - they didn't understand the consequences of their actions.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Let's Discuss Gun Control
    Quote from LogicX
    But yet the Colorado shooter was able to hit 70 people in a couple of minutes because of the weapons he had. If you have weapons with such large magazines that the only limitation is how fast you can squeeze your the trigger that is a problem. That is not needed for self defense.

    Any competent user of almost any firearm besides a muzzle loader could fire off enough rounds to hit 70 people in a couple of minutes. I could easily do it with my semiautomatic Glock 17 I carry for personal defense, and it only has 17 round clips (that it comes standard with from Austria).

    I do agree with you, however, that the 100 round drum magazine used by him is unneeded for civilians, and it should probably be restricted. A magazine like that is almost solely intended for combat situations that the military or police would encounter, and for civilians the standard magazine that comes with an AR-15 should be sufficient for recreational and home defense purposes.

    Quote from LogicX
    You got upset and started raging about "lefties" when I pointed out that countries with stricter gun laws have lower rates of gun violence. You refuse to rebut any opinion based on facts that disagrees with your own, preferring instead to just launch into mad diatribes about the ignorance of your opponents.

    Your ignorance involving guns is self evident. And you have a long history of refusing to cite your own sources in more threads than just this one and the one about Colorado. You also refuse to compare two different cities in the same country with different laws when talking about laws in that country, and insist instead on comparing one country to another...which never works. I've explained it plenty of times, and you refuse to accept it. And I bet you'll ask me to explain it again in this thread.

    Before you participate further in this thread, I suggest you do some background reading on the myriad of gun control laws the United States already has, and learn about the technical differences between assault rifles and regular rifles.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.